UNITED STATES v. IGNOFFO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,v.RONALD IGNOFFO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

DETENTION ORDER

On January 9, 1985 following a jury trial, Ronald Ignoffo
("Ignoffo") was convicted on all counts in the indictment in
which he was named in this case. On January 10 the government
moved for Ignoffo's detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act
of 1984 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a),*fn1 claiming
Ignoffo was likely to pose a danger to the safety of other
persons or the community if released pursuant to Act §§ 3142(b)
or (c). This Court immediately conducted a detention hearing
(the "Hearing") on January 10 and 11. Based on the evidence
presented at the Hearing this Court makes the following
findings of fact ("Findings"):

1. FBI Agent Scott Jennings ("Jennings") testified as to
information he had obtained from Timothy Joyce a/k/a Timothy
O'Malley ("Joyce") during the course of a 1981 interview, in
which Joyce had told Jennings Victor Arrigo ("Arrigo") had
borrowed Joyce's automobile some six months earlier and then
failed to return it. On the day after he borrowed the car,
Arrigo had assertedly told Joyce he had committed the
gangland-type shooting assassination of John DeJohn ("DeJohn")
in Joyce's automobile and had been accompanied by Ignoffo
during the killing.*fn2 According to Arrigo the
assassination had been ordered by "Caesar."*fn3 This Court
finds the evidence described in this Finding 1 credible.

2. During the trial, immunized witness Eileen Colgan ("Colgan")
provided testimony that, from implications reasonably drawn
from the jury's questions to this Court while they were
conducting their deliberations before verdict, appears to have
been highly significant to that verdict. Among more than 60
trial witnesses, only Colgan was able to provide direct
evidence that linked as many as four persons (Ignoffo and three
others) to a single overall gambling business and a conspiracy
to conduct such a business. For conviction under Count Two of
the indictment, a minimum of five persons must have been found
by the jury to have engaged in such a business (and the
conspiracy conviction under Count One correspondingly had the
same five-person requirement). In fact the jury found guilty of
the charges under both those Counts four of the defendants: the
three defendants identified by Colgan (Ignoffo,
Marshall Portnoy and Warren Winkler)*fn4 and DiVarco. Before
her testimony Colgan had expressed real fear of Ignoffo, about
whom she said (outside the presence of the jury):

Ms. Colgan: I grew up with Ron Ignoffo and watched him break
people's faces, and I know the man.

Mr. Werksman: Break their faces? Ms. Colgan: Yes, literally.

3. At the Hearing Ignoffo said he was not involved in the
DeJohn shooting and offered the testimony of a number of
character witnesses (his sister, her daughter and five persons
acquainted with him for varying periods of time). All those
witnesses characterized Ignoffo as non-violent. However not one
of the acquaintances was aware of the several arrests shown on
Ignoffo's "rap sheet" (several of which involved charges of
battery),*fn5 nor did any of them know any of a series of
individuals about whom the prosecutor asked — individuals with
whom Ignoffo was associated in his gambling activities or the
individuals referred to in Finding 1.

Based on the facts presented to this Court at the Hearing and
reflected in the Findings, this Court finds and concludes:

1. Ignoffo has been found guilty of a number of offenses and is
now awaiting sentence. Accordingly Act § 3143(a) is applicable
to him.

2. On the weight of the evidence produced against Ignoffo as
described in Finding 1 (evidence that has been credited by this
Court), coupled with the sincere and legitimate fears expressed
by Colgan as described in Finding 2, all of which are
contrasted with the makeweight nature of the evidence produced
by Ignoffo as described in Finding 3,*fn6 this Court cannot
find there is clear and convincing evidence Ignoffo is not
likely to pose a danger to the safety of any other person or
the community if released pursuant to Act § 3142(b) or (c).

It is therefore ordered that Ignoffo is committed to the
custody of the Attorney General for confinement at the Chicago
Metropolitan Correctional Center pending imposition of
sentence. This Court reserves judgment on the motion by
Ignoffo's counsel challenging the constitutionality of Act §
3143(a), both on its face and as applied to Ignoffo, pending
submission by both sides' counsel of legal authorities on that
subject.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.